Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Splost Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb commissioners debate scope of SPLOST 2 oversight committee and whether oversight can span future SPLOSTs
Summary
County commissioners discussed a revised SPLOST resident oversight committee resolution and whether a single oversight body could persist across separate SPLOST cycles, with staff agreeing to circulate the originally approved and proposed versions for comparison.
DeKalb County commissioners on April 15 discussed a revised version of the citizen resident oversight committee for SPLOST 2 and debated whether any oversight body could be structured to continue across future SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) cycles.
The discussion centered on a revised resolution staff presented that would update the committee’s design based on lessons from the SPLOST 1 oversight process. “If you pass that version, it would change the name and your appointments would be pursuant to the alternate version of the resolution,” County Attorney staff said, describing the draft update as “merely an updated version to borrow from things learned in SPLOST 1 and make this a more effective committee.”
Commissioner Nicole Messiah pressed staff to provide both the originally approved SPLOST 2 resident oversight committee legislation and the administration’s proposed amendments so commissioners could compare them. “Would it be possible to distribute the initially approved SPLOST two’s resident oversight committee legislation to everybody here, and then what is being proposed with an amendment by the CEO, and if you could break down the differences, so that could people very easily see what was initially voted on and what you're suggesting, or what the CEO's suggesting,” Messiah said.
Commissioner Messiah and others raised the practical concern that separate SPLOST measures are independent referenda with individually defined projects and allocations. Staff reiterated the legal and practical limits: “Each SPLOST is considered separate and distinct, commissioner messiah. Mhmm. They have to be approved by referendum. All of the items and the expenditures that go in the referendum have to be honored, etcetera, so forth. So each 1 is independent,” a staff member said.
Commissioners asked staff to prepare materials that (1) show the original SPLOST 2 language, (2) show the CEO’s proposed amendments, and (3) outline whether and how an ongoing oversight entity could be created while preserving the separate legal status of each SPLOST. Commissioner Marita Davis Johnson said commissioners should retain the ability to reappoint or change their appointees if a continuing oversight board were created.
The clerk’s office staff said the updated resolution (listed on the preliminary agenda as item 20250538) would be circulated to commissioners; staff also noted the SPLOST 1 oversight committee sunsetted March 30 of the previous year and that SPLOST 2’s committee began April 1 of last year but was not populated immediately.
The board agreed to continue the conversation at committee and staff committed to distributing comparison documents and suggested draft language for an ongoing oversight option for commissioners to review.
Ending: Staff said the matter will be discussed further in committee and that updated documents would be distributed to commissioners for review ahead of the next meeting.
